Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was justified, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy under the Act.
Analysis: Section 35 permits provisional attachment only when, during inquiry, inspection, or search proceedings, the Commissioner forms an opinion that such action is necessary to protect the revenue. The power is drastic and must rest on relevant material. The attachment was issued while search and inspection proceedings were in progress, but the material did not show any satisfactory basis for immediate coercive action, especially when the dispute regarding tax classification had been pending for years and the petitioner had already challenged the earlier determination order before the Tribunal. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy was not an absolute bar to writ relief, and on the facts the remedy was not considered efficacious. The petitioner's undertaking that its assets would not be alienated or encumbered sufficiently protected the revenue.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment was unjustified and was set aside. The bank accounts were directed to be released, and the writ petition succeeded.